Dismissed¶27

Smt. S. Madhavi v. M/S. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd

Telangana HC15 Oct 2025CRP/7646/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court CRP 7646 of 2018 Article 227 Constitution of India dismissed non-prosecution 15-10-2025 Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonoa; petitioners S. Madhavi S. Suryapraksah; respondents Kapil Chit Funds Ameerpet N. Narsing Rao Md. Jafar Khan Abdhul Razak; impugned common order 09-08-2018 Principal Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy L.B. Nagar I.A. 1364 of 2016 O.S. 123 of 2010; counsel Sunchu Sriram Balguri Srinivas; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

What did the court decide?

None. The C.R.P. was dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs was made; pending miscellaneous applications were ordered closed as a sequel. ¶27

Smt. S. Madhavi Vs M/S. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The C.R.P. was dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs was made; pending miscellaneous applications were ordered closed as a sequel.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners wished to pursue this civil revision petition against the common order dated 09-08-2018 in O.S. No. 123 of 2010, or whether, in view of their repeated non-appearance, the C.R.P. should be dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶26

Court's answer

Given the absence of any representation on 13.10.2025 (matter captioned 'For Dismissal') and again throughout 15.10.2025 in both sessions despite proceedings being made available in hybrid (virtual and physical) mode and a pass-over to the afternoon, the Court concluded that the petitioners were not interested in pursuing the matter and that it had no other option except to dismiss the matter for non-prosecution.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs.

¶27

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad | CRP No. 7646 of 2018 (petition under Article 227, Constitution of India) | Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonoa | Decided 15-10-2025. Smt. S. Madhavi and S. Suryapraksah had filed this revision petition against the common order dated 09-08-2018 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, passed in I.A. No. 1364 of 2016 (printed twice in source) in O.S. No. 123 of 2010, the principal respondent being M/s. Kapil Chit Funds (Ameerpet Branch); respondents 2-4 were marked not necessary parties. The matter, earlier listed on 13-10-2025 under the caption 'For Dismissal' for want of representation, again saw no appearance by the petitioners on 15-10-2025 in either the morning or the post-lunch session, although proceedings were made available in both virtual and physical modes and the matter was deliberately passed over. Holding that the petitioners were not interested in pursuing the matter, the Court DISMISSED the C.R.P. FOR NON-PROSECUTION, made no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous applications as a sequel. No precedent was engaged with and no substantive argument on the underlying dispute appears in this order.

¶1

[³⁴⁴³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONOA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETI ON NO: 7646 OF 2018

¶7

Petition under Artide 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the common order, dated 09-08-20'18 passed in l.A. No. 1364 of 2016 and l.A. No. 1364 of 2016 in O.S.No.123 of 2010 on the file of The Principal Senior Civil Judge. Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar.

¶8

Between

¶9

1.' SMT. S. MADHAVI, Wo. S. Suryapraksah, aged about 42^years, Occ^House wife. R/o. H.No. 5-5-18. Hills Colony. Nr. Sushma Theatre,^{Vanastalipuram,} Hvd.

¶10

2, S. SURYAPRAKSAH, S/O Late Sri S.N.Srihari. aged about 61^years, Occ Retd. Service, R/o. H.N o 5-5-'18, Hills Colony, Nr. Sushma^Theatre, Vanastalipuram, Hyd.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

'1 . M/S. KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PW.LTD, Ameerpet branch, Rep. by its Asst General Manager. (Recovery), Sri. Y. Rajendra^Kumar. 4-AMC,^S.R.Nagar, 2nd floor, 135 M.G Plaza. Vengal Rao Nagar, S.R.Nagar.^Hyderabad.

¶14

N. Narsing Rao, S/o. N.Pentaiah. aged about^{43 years,} Occ^{Bus Conductor} R/o. H.No. 8-8, Ghatkesar, R.R.Distriet

¶15

Md. Jafar Khan, S/o. Md.^{Khder, aged} about^{54 years,} Occ^{Govt.Servtce,} R/o. H.No. 7-1-632165/66, Bapunagar, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad

¶16

Abdhul Razak, S/o. Md. Wahid All Khan, aged about 54^years, Occ^Govt. Service, R/o. H. No. 9-1 1-284i¹ .^Near Banjara^Dharga, Golkonda.^Fort, Hyderabad. (Respondents 2 to 4 arc not necessary^{parties to this petition)}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl.^SUNCHU SRIRAM

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI BALGURI SRINIVAS

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTTCE^{NARSING RAO IT INDIKONDA}

¶22

CTVIL REVISIO N PETITION^{No.7646 of} i^or8

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

When the matter was Iisted on 13.1O.202[i^{there was no} representation on behalf of the^petitioners and thctr^{the matter was} directed to be listed under the caption 'For Dismiss,r.'

¶25

Accordingly, today when the matter was cal :d, though the Court proceed ings were made available in H1't,r .d mode^(both Virtual & Physical), there was no representatior on behalf of petitioners in the morning session and the matter vas passed over to afternoon session to give a fair opportunity to^rl e petitioners to represent their case, however, when the matter wa i taken up in the afternoon session i.e., post lunch, none apl eared for the petitioners.

¶26

In view of the above, it appears that pe^-:ioners are not interested to pursue the matter, hence, this Cou t has no other option except to dismiss the matter for non-prosec I ion.

¶27